Don’t Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out
The universally reviled Mark Penn is out as Clinton’s chief campaign strategist, ironically enough for pushing free trade:
Mark Penn, the architect of much of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, has been replaced as the campaign’s chief strategist in the wake of revelations that he lobbied on behalf of a trade treaty with Colombia that Mrs. Clinton opposes.
Mr. Penn, who has been associated with Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton for a dozen years, has come under withering criticism for continuing to consult with clients as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller, the international lobbying and public relations firm.
He has also been held responsible for the flawed electoral strategy considered partly responsible for Mrs. Clinton’s difficult political position, trailing Senator Barack Obama by more than a hundred delegates and with a very narrow path to winning the Democratic nomination.
In a terse statement, Maggie Williams, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, said, “After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign.”
His polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign, the statement said.
Geoff Garin, the newly hired pollster, and Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s longtime communications director, will coordinate the campaign’s strategic message team going forward.
Mr. Penn, long a divisive figure within the Clinton camp, lost his pre-eminent position after revelations that he met with Colombia’s ambassador to the United States last Monday in his role as head of Burson-Marsteller. The Colombian government hired the lobbying firm last year under a $300,000 one-year contract to help secure passage of a bilateral trade treaty with the United States.
Mrs. Clinton strongly opposes the treaty, as do many Democrats in Congress and many American trade unions, who believe the treaty is unfair to American workers. Mrs. Clinton has also cited the Colombian government’s history of suppressing the labor union movement in that country.
Several American union leaders called for Mr. Penn’s dismissal on Friday and top officials within the Clinton campaign grumbled loudly that Mr. Penn had given the campaign a black eye at a critical moment, just two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary and the final series of contests that will likely decide the nomination.
A person within the Clinton campaign said Sunday that Mrs. Clinton was “disappointed” that Mr. Penn had taken on Colombia as a client and had met with Colombian officials to advise them on how to win passage of a pact she has publicly denounced.
Mrs. Clinton was said to be furious when she learned that he was employed by and consulting with the Colombians on the trade treaty.
Mr. Penn apologized Friday and said the meeting had been a mistake. The Colombians, offended by what they called an insult from a hired lobbyist and spokesman, fired him and Burson-Marsteller on Saturday.
So pretty much an out-and-out fiasco all the way through…I have no stake in Mark Penn’s future employment one way or the other, and you can’t contradict the boss without expecting consequences, but it’s a sad commentary on how deeply ingrained ‘fair trade’ protectionism is in today’s Democratic party. Think the economy’s in trouble now? Wait until the Democrats have enough power in Congress to start really pushing through their protectionist agenda. When other countries decide the Euro zone is a more hospitable investment climate, our goose will be truly cooked…
What exactly do you fear Democrats are going to do with trade that will ruin the world? Since they can’t really stop the Internet, technological advance, or the growth of China, how much threat can Democrats possibly be to globalization? I want to hear some specific policies Democrats want and some evidence about what exactly those policies will do to the economy. I’m as much a free trader as you are, Mark, but your trade comments always have the ring of Chicken Little about them.
It isn’t even theoretically possible for the Democratic Party to be worse for the economy (not to mention every other facet of human life) than the Republicans have been, but I’m willing to listen if you have some actual statistical analysis to support your claims. From where I’m sitting, every single piece of evidence (you’ve seen the new chart from Bartels showing that Democrats do better for income growth for everyone than Republicans?) indicates that Democrats are quite simply better for the economy than Republicans, so where are your numbers? When do facts get in the way of ideology?
Mark: you will no doubt be pleased to know that your thinking is in perfect alignment with the New York Times editorial page, which slammed Obama and Clinton for their trade policies.
[...] on it all at: Ankle Biting Pundits | The Weekly Standard | Hot Air | FullosseousFlap | Decision ‘08 | The American Pundit | Firedoglake | Patterico | Gateway Pundit | Ace of Spades HQ | Related [...]
Ryan, I honestly don’t know how to respond to you. You state you’re a committed free trader, then ask me for specific Democratic policies that will be harmful for the economy? When the very subject of my post was how Clinton’s top strategist got pushed out for advocating free trade?
I’ve got to speak with the person giving out ‘committed free trader’ status, because we’ve made the admission requirements too lenient…
Let’s take Peter’s cue and quote from the very left-leaning NY Times editorial board:
The editorial board of the Times is less left-leaning than you may think. They are pretty middle of the road when it comes to trade and foreign relations, as well as domestic issues like illegal immigration and the budget. It is not uncommon for them to endorse Republicans, including Giuliani when he ran for Mayor. They certainly didn’t give Bill Clinton a free ride. I realize that they have a lot of editorials which are on the left side of the road, but I don’t think that they can be pidgeon-holed as a consistently left-leaning publication.
Is there nothing Rove can’t do? He can even inspire Obama and Clinton.
I realize this is difficult for the NYT. Not all “bad” things are due to Karl Rove or George Bush.